I don't see why they wouldn't take Locker at 10 but would be willing to take him 4 spots later at 14. If you think a guys your franchise QB you try moving back if you feel confident you can get him after the trade, but you don't pass him up when you can't find the trade you're looking for.

That seems to be the company line, or at least the whispers coming out of Redskin park. Basically McNabb had a track record of success and wasn't really looking to come in and retool his game. He might be willing to accept more coaching with his next team, but just as easily he might just ask the coaching staff to let him improvise.

Shanahan's system is suppose to be QB friendly. It's suppose to let guys get away with 58%-60% completion rates in exchange for selling play action and getting the ball down the field. For whatever reason McNabb seemed to insist on working outside the system and the mechanics the Shanahans wanted to employ and it resulted in him being benched for the last 3 games.

The theory with Locker is that he has a very similar skill set to McNabb but at the same time doesn't know the NFL and has experienced a recent fall from grace. Making him twice as likely to soak up everything the Shanahan's teach him in hopes that it will help him prove that he belongs in this league.

Hopefully that theory, if true will work out for the Skins if they decide to draft him.

If any team is lucky enough to have a player that they think can be their Franchise QB available for them to draft at #10, then they would be very foolish not to pick him then and there. It would be utterly ridiculous, if not unthinkable, to move down four positions to pick up a third rounder and risk missing out on the player who could man the most important position on the team for the next ten years.

As for any debate between Mike vs. Kyle on which QB to pick, I feel confident that the pick will be Mike's alone since he is the boss and it's his job on the line. Kyle works for Mike, not vice versa. Their opinions are not equal. Mike will take the QB he wants whenever he picks one.

"Kyle, I'll decide which quarterback we pick! Be quiet or I'll send you to your room! I mean it!" - Mike Shanahan

If any team is lucky enough to have a player that they think can be their Franchise QB available for them to draft at #10, then they would be very foolish not to pick him then and there. It would be utterly ridiculous, if not unthinkable, to move down four positions to pick up a third rounder and risk missing out on the player who could man the most important position on the team for the next ten years.

As for any debate between Mike vs. Kyle on which QB to pick, I feel confident that the pick will be Mike's alone since he is the boss and it's his job on the line. Kyle works for Mike, not vice versa. Their opinions are not equal. Mike will take the QB he wants whenever he picks one.

"Kyle, I'll decide which quarterback we pick! Be quiet or I'll send you to your room! I mean it!" - Mike Shanahan

I completely agree with your first paragraph. I made that point last week on here about not trading down if the guy you envision as your franchise QB is on the board and one person after another disagreed with me. It just makes no sense to me how you can think a guy could be your franchise QB for the next 10 years yet you roll the dice on losing him to pick up an extra draft pick.

As for Mike being the boss...that's true and no one is suggesting that he does not have the final decision but after that decision is made Kyle as OC and Mike need to be 100% behind whoever is selected. If it's Locker I don't want to hear leaks about how Kyle never wanted Locker the way we did when the McNabb trade went south during the season.

I completely agree with your first paragraph. I made that point last week on here about not trading down if the guy you envision as your franchise QB is on the board and one person after another disagreed with me. It just makes no sense to me how you can think a guy could be your franchise QB for the next 10 years yet you roll the dice on losing him to pick up an extra draft pick.

So let's say Julio Jones is on the board at #10 and the Rams want him bad enough, trade back, pick up an extra pick, and still grab Locker at #14. That's just smart drafting.

All of this may be moot anyway, who's to say Locker is even our top QB option as SS has alluded to. Maybe Locker and someone else like Dalton are 1 and 1a on our board, and there isn't a big enough difference between them to matter.

So let's say Julio Jones is on the board at #10 and the Rams want him bad enough, trade back, pick up an extra pick, and still grab Locker at #14. That's just smart drafting.

All of this may be moot anyway, who's to say Locker is even our top QB option as SS has alluded to. Maybe Locker and someone else like Dalton are 1 and 1a on our board, and there isn't a big enough difference between them to matter.

Or maybe another higher rated player on our board slides down.

The Vikings are the reason that you can't trade down to 14 if Locker is the player you want. You think they will pass but your not sure. But if it's 1 and 1A or they are looking at another position entirely then of course the trade down is the smart play. The only way the trade down is not smart is if Locker is their clear choice, but the way it sounds that is not the case anyway.

Also the whole league knows the skins need a QB so keep in mind that every spot the Redskins trade down to...the spot right in front of that becomes a trade up spot the other teams in the QB market are going to consider jumping to.

The Vikings are the reason that you can't trade down to 14 if Locker is the player you want. You think they will pass but your not sure. But if it's 1 and 1A or they are looking at another position entirely then of course the trade down is the smart play. The only way the trade down is not smart is if Locker is their clear choice, but the way it sounds that is not the case anyway.

Also the whole league knows the skins need a QB so keep in mind that every spot the Redskins trade down to...the spot right in front of that becomes a trade up spot the other teams in the QB market are going to consider jumping to.

Yeah, but McNabb is paying us to release him and we all know where future hall of fame QB's that fall victim to misguided trades go right?

__________________"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice."- Scooter

"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG

The Vikings are the reason that you can't trade down to 14 if Locker is the player you want. You think they will pass but your not sure. But if it's 1 and 1A or they are looking at another position entirely then of course the trade down is the smart play. The only way the trade down is not smart is if Locker is their clear choice, but the way it sounds that is not the case anyway.

Also the whole league knows the skins need a QB so keep in mind that every spot the Redskins trade down to...the spot right in front of that becomes a trade up spot the other teams in the QB market are going to consider jumping to.

Good point. Of course it is. That's just another reason not to trade down to 14 and hope to get your QB. And I don't believe for a second that the Skins or any other team actually have in mind a pair of first round QB's they like equally well. They do far too much research on them for that to be the case.

As much as I like Locker, I have no problem with the Skins trading down. But, if they do, they should trade down farther, if possible, with the idea of getting more picks to fortify positions other than QB. If they were to trade with San Diego, they could get #18 plus a mid-second round pick. If they were to trade with NE, they could get #17 plus a late second round pick and a late fourth round pick. That's much better than risking getting the QB they want in the first round, if that's what they want, for a just a third round pick.

Then they could lose all of their games and draft Andrew Luck #1 in next year's draft!

Former Dolphins V.P. of football operations Bill Parcells recently conceded to Armando Salguero of the Miami Herald that the team “maybe” should have taken quarterback Matt Ryan instead of tackle Jake Long with the first pick in the 2008 draft.

__________________"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice."- Scooter

"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG

Does anyone know who the last quarterback who started fewer than 27 games and completed fewer than 60% of his passes AND had considerable NFL success was? I'd say there's some guys you just don't take.

Let's simplify this: I want to find the quarterback with the LOWEST college completion percentage to be drafted in the last ten years and achieve some reasonable degree of success. I am guessing that we're going to be dealing with a 58% or better passer.

How about the reverse?

Can anyone name the litany of above 60% college QBs that have failed in the NFL?

__________________No longer were NFL coaches dealing inflexibly with spread [QBs] in ways that caused stunted development for players like [A. Smith and Vick] now, the idea is to bring what the quarterback can do, and what he should do, together as an organic whole